SC agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to list the matter in the week after advocate Pradeep Yadav, appearing for petitioner Taiyyab Khan Salmani, sought an urgent hearing.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Yadav said over hundreds of government schools would be shut and thousands of primary students would be out of school, being forced to study in neighbhouring schools, if the government order of June 16 was not stayed.
He said the state govt's order was challenged before the high court but it dismissed the pleas on July 7.
Justice Kant said though a policy decision, it was ready to examine the issue if government schools were being shut.
The plea said on June 16, the additional chief secretary of state's Basic Shiksha Department issued an order directing for taking steps for pairing of the schools managed under the supervision and control of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the state government.
"Consequent to which on dated June 24, 2025 the actual list of the schools which are being paired being 105 in numbers has been issued," the plea said. The high court dismissed the petitions on July 7 without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case that the said merger order will directly affect and destroy the already vulnerable education system in the state, it added.
The petitioner argued that the policy decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as it offended the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules framed by the state government. The plea referred to Rule 4(1)(a) and said it was incumbent for the state government to establish a school with respect to children from Class 1 to 5 in the habitation where there was no school within a distance of a kilometer and the habitation having a population of at least 300 people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC Summons Samay Raina, Other Comedians Over Alleged Remarks On Disabilities
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed stand-up comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar to appear personally before the court on the next date of hearing over their alleged insensitive remarks against persons with disabilities. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed comedian Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, to appear virtually during the next hearing. The apex court recorded the presence of Raina, Goyal, Tanwar, Ghai, and Thakkar and directed them to file their replies to the petition within two weeks. They all appeared before the apex court today in pursuant to court's earlier order. The bench made it clear that no extension will be granted beyond this period and warned that any absence on the next date of hearing will be viewed seriously. The apex court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines while balancing the freedom of speech and expression and the rights and duties of others. Venkataramani sought time to assist the court on the issue and said the enforceability of guidelines would require detailed consideration. "What we are doing is for posterity. You have to ensure that not a single word is misused by anyone. You have to ensure balance. We have to protect citizens' rights. A framework must be there that the dignity of anyone is not violated," the bench said. #WATCH | Delhi | Comedian Samay Raina arrives in the Supreme Court, to appear before the court in the matter related to allegedly mocking persons with disabilities. — ANI (@ANI) July 15, 2025 The top court was hearing a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation seeking a prohibition on the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on the digital media against persons with disability. It also sought the formulation of guidelines to safeguard the rights and dignity of persons with disability in the context of the broadcasting of online content. On May 5, the bench had summoned the comedians to appear before it or face coercive action after the plea alleged that they ridiculed persons suffering from SMA, a rare disorder, and also those suffering from other disabilities on their show. The top court had also issued notice to the Union of India through the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, Electronics and Information Technology, Social Justice and Empowerment, and News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation. The NGO brought to the notice of the court the broadcast of certain online content, media and programmes that are derogatory, offensive, denigrating, ableist or belittling to persons with disability, or their diseases, or their treatment options. The petitioner was also aggrieved by the lack of any explicit statutory guidelines to sufficiently regulate the broadcast of such online content, which violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities, while transgressing the qualified right of free speech and expression. It asked the court to put a positive obligation on both the government and private actors to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain. The NGO accused Raina of insensitive remarks on persons with such conditions, high-costing drugs and treatment options for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and also alleged to have ridiculed a person with disability. It flagged videos where he made comments on persons with disabilities. The petition said these comedians are public figures and enjoy a following of millions of viewers/users on various social media intermediaries. "The petitioner is concerned by certain live and pre-recorded event videos of these individuals, due to their offensive, denigrating and dehumanising representation of persons with disabilities," the petition said. "These videos shed light on the widespread irresponsible, insensitive and violate dissemination of such online content that contravenes the rightsof the persons with disability under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, propels offensive stereotypes and misguided portrayals against them, and detrimentally impacts their societal participation, and fosters insensitivity and inhumanity against them, and as such falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)," said the petition.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
‘Undignified' Modi caricature: SC grants interim protection from arrest to Indore cartoonist
An Indore-based cartoonist who was booked for depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in an allegedly undignified manner was granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Live Law reported. However, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar cautioned that if the cartoonist, Hemant Malviya, continued to share offensive posts on social media, the Madhya Pradesh government was free to take action against him, PTI reported. The order came after Malviya submitted an apology for his social media post. The court has directed the cartoonist to file the apology in Hindi as an affidavit, Live Law reported. On Monday, the cartoonist agreed to delete the allegedly objectionable post after being criticised by the Supreme Court. Malviya had moved the top court challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that denied him anticipatory bail in the case. The High Court in its July 3 order observed that Malviya had 'clearly overstepped' the limits of free speech and misused his right to expression. The court held that the cartoonist had failed to exercise discretion while publishing the caricature and held that his custodial interrogation was necessary. The case Malviya had published the original cartoon on January 6, 2021, which depicted Modi as a doctor administering an injection to a man dressed in what may have appeared to some as the uniform of the RSS. The RSS is the parent organisation of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It was accompanied with the Hindi caption: 'Why are you worried? Serum's Poonawala has said that the vaccine only has water, you won't die from the side effect of water!' This was a reference to Serum Institute of India's chief executive Adar Poonawalla alleging that many Covid-19 vaccines in the market were only as effective as water. According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, a Facebook user had republished the cartoon, but replaced the caption with one in which the man in the purported RSS uniform addresses Modi as an incarnation of the Hindu deity Shiva and asks to be injected with such a strong dose of the caste census in his buttocks so that he forgets the Pahalgam terror attack, the controversial Waqf Act, among other matters. Malviya had shared the amended version of his cartoon on Facebook on May 1, writing that anyone could use any of his cartoons by writing their own names and captions. All his cartoons were for the public, by the public and dedicated to the public, he said. He added that the amended cartoon was shared with him by a friend and that whoever had created the caption had written well. Based on this, a RSS member had filed a complaint, alleging that Malviya had posted objectionable content on Facebook that defamed the Hindutva organisation and hurt religious sentiments. Malviya was booked in May under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act pertaining to promoting enmity between different groups, acts intended to outrage religious feelings, intentional insult and electronically publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts. Malviya has argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and that his work was merely satire. He also said that the comments about the caricature on Facebook were not his own, and therefore, he could not be held responsible for them.
